>> ^spoco2:

You know... that was pretty much child porn fan fiction, so I can't say I find that particularly amusing.


Harry Potter ought to be of age in the UK by the fifth book. If I remember the movies correctly, Voldemort doesn't come back until the fourth and they don't get any private time together until the fifth.

However, according to Wikipedia the books are set before the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 2000, which equalised the ages of consent between homosexual and heterosexual sex. Which means, unless this story took place during Deathly Hallows, Voldemort could be in trouble with the muggle authorities. Except he's probably dead; I haven't seen that one yet.

But I think what we should all remember most of all is that Harry Potter isn't a real person.

>> ^BoneRemake:

So this was a joke that was completely lost on me ??
Whatever, glad someone got a rise out of it.
( I am irked because I am still oblivious )


For the fund-raising thing, they add a header to every page that includes a photo of a contributor/user/whatever and a quote by them begging for money. The layout of the page sometimes makes it look like the photo of this person is in some way related to the content of the page. Sometimes that makes for humorous juxtapositions, such as when you imagine that the editor at the top of the page is really into auto-erotic asphyxiation.

its erotically agitating

If you people would get off your reactionary, self-righteous high horses for a second you would realize he is one of the good guys, relatively speaking. A bit dramatic perhaps, sure.

The subtle, if somewhat awkward manner in which he phrased his position is where you're getting hung up, methinks.

"Personally? It doesn't matter - I'm a trader. I don't really care about that kind of stuff. If I see an opportunity to make money, I go with that."

"Personally?" - Perhaps better read as "Honestly?" instead. He's leading with a qualifier because he knows what he says next is not likely to be corroborated by his peers in the mainstream press- precisely because it would generate the type of reaction seen in this very thread. Where others would "massage" their message to make the profession seem more noble, he doesn't. Its honestly quite baffling to me that there's even a perception problem stemming from the relevant parties acting in their own self-interest. (As an aside, I'm quite aware of the rampant corruption that occurs - indeed, often when that very spirit of self-interest collapses into blind greed. My statements only consider those who are above board.)

Also, don't interpret "Personally?" in a literal sense that he "truly doesn't care about that kind of stuff" in his own, personal moral fiber. In order to illustrate his point, he's speaking from the point of view of "every trader." That certainly includes him, but doesn't speak to his individual conscience. "Not caring" whether the market rebounds doesn't mean he feels no sorrow for those who've lost everything, he means it has no bearing on his bottom line because every trader with a functioning brain hedges their bets. Present company seems to find that idea morally repugnant, but to not do it would outright crazy. In addition, there's no moral implication anyway - the market's gonna do what it does whether there's systemic hedging or not.

I could break down the rest about how you should all calm down over the "dreaming of another recession" comment or the fact traders literally couldn't be the ones to fix things if they tried, but I think y'all get the idea.
He then goes on to give people what sounds to me like sound advice in taking advantage of a down market, and goes so far as to suggest that Goldman Sachs has more influence over the world economy than the governments themselves - which is, of course, completely true. (BTW, I'll take 2:1 that he's found dead from auto-erotic asphyxiation by Halloween.)

tl;dr version: Don't hate the Player. Hate the game.

Love how they start off implying that kindergarten book King & King is "homo-erotic material" and then go on to talk about the "gay agenda" in schools. Fuck these people

0:46 - 0:48 was strangely erotic.

This is what Matt Damon is referring to by MBA thinking. Some people are defined by their jobs, some people aren't. I always thought it was rather insulting when people want to find out "Who are you?" in the sense of more than just your name, they ask "What do you do?" in the sense that your job/daily activity is the end all be all of what you contribute.

You are essentially saying that if you find a spot in a career path that you enjoy, excel at and are love to do and are still there 5 years later, you are doing nothing with your life. Even if you raise a family, volunteer, involve yourself in other people's lives........instead of spending your time looking for career advancement because that's what we should value. It's not specifically a bad thing, but it's something a lot of people would be utterly miserable doing. Live to work versus work to live type mentality.

Besides there are jobs that have to be done in society for it to run that are seen as menial "do nothing" jobs. With one hand you are accepting the services they make possible and with the other you are slapping them in the face and telling them their contribution is nothing. Waste management (Garbage truck operators (lots), landfill operations (few)), Waste Water Treatment facilities, road crews, farmers, etc. All of these jobs their progress and contribution to society can be measured daily if so desired, and the majority of those jobs are looked down upon and seen as unskilled labor. Yet they are necessary for the "noble"/desirable/rich professions of doctors and lawyers to even function. They would do away with those jobs if they could, but instead they work to cut the costs associated with them.....no matter how necessary they are. Earnings and cost are something to be considered, but they are not the end all be all of what keeps a society functioning. There are a lot more grunt jobs than there are management/white collar jobs.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.
What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.

Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.
Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.

What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.



Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.

Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

that's right there QM. our hordes of overpaid commie teachers will have those kids tree-hugging and fucking farm animals in no time flat. they'll be spouting Mao and dosing eachother with patchouli and erecting slightly homo-erotic statues of our Obama GOD (made out of gold with YOUR money). then we're gonna take em all down to the needle exchange while destroying a couple of nativity scenes on the way.

If you don't find this erotic, there is something seriously wrong with you.

Strangely erotic.

http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/03/25/a-dutch-politician-accidentally-tweeted-the-most-erotic-tweet-ever/


http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=493265

this is not porn. call it erotic art

I'm actually going to partially agree with QM here (strange, I know).

I don't like these at all, really don't.

The reason they are made? Purely to get people to notice them, stand out from the crowd. Are they good at what porn is supposed to be about, which is to turn on one or more parties, usually to orgasm, or possibly just turn on before the interested parties turn their attentions on each other? No. No they're not.

The sex can turn you on, but is standard shit, treating women poorly, as objects, and is just not 'erotic' at all. And the 'plot' just interrupts the intent of turning you on.

I would far, FAR more applaud porn that shows all parties enjoying sex and being truly erotic becoming more popular than the horrible, demeaning dross that is porn these days.

Sad face...

Sad face indeed